Just wondering about zoom lenses. Which par focal, image stabilised lenses people would suggest.
Again thank you for any help.

Start with the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100.
They are not strictly par focal but very close.
The focussing rings on both work in the same direction as my favourite lens - the Sigma 24-70 2.8.

I spent less than £1000 for the pair.

While we are on the subject of lenses, I'm considering a 4-6 lens set of VDSLR f1.5 Samyang/Rokinon Primes to replace my hodge podge of Nikon mount glass. I wanted to ask anyone with any experience of them what they thought.

I guess I should get them in MFT mount to give a more solid connection to the camera without the need for an adaptor, even though they'd have a better resale value in a different mount. I know the Rokinons have been bundled with the LS300 in the past, but I wanted to check that all of them cover the LS300 S35 sensor OK, even being in an MFT mount.

It seems that all the f1.5 lenses are full frame compatible and could be combined with a Speedbooster?

Thanks.

Not that much choice but I would add the 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 power o.i.s. to the list as well.

I agree about the 14-140mm f3.5-5.6.

I have 12-35 as well. This is a good combination, unless you shoot strictly in low-light situations. In that case, the 35-100 may be a better choice. But I prefer the 14-140 range, and it costs less than the 35-100. Usually when I am shooting in low-light, it's with the 12-35 anyway.

I often use the Olympus 12-40. It's very sharp, matches my Rokinon primes, and has a slightly longer reach than the Lumix - and you can slide the focus ring out to make it manual, which is more positive feeling (although footage readout in finder goes away, but that'e never accurate anyway). No OIS on it though.

As I've stated here on numerous threads, no lens I've tested - and it's a lot - is parfocal with this camera, even converted S16 lenses, which truly are designed as parfocal, slip focus when zooming. I've tried Angenieux, Canon and Cooke.

It's very frustrating because they all work well on the diminutive Pocket and Micro Cinema Cameras.

The hope of finding one is further diminished by the desire for OIS - ain't gonna happen.

I have 1:1 set on the most convenient button on my EVFs (Gratical X and Z-Finder) and prepare to refocus whenever I zoom - because, especially with the Olympus, it can look in focus in the finder, even with peaking, but when you get home you're in for a shock.

Thanks for all the info Steve. It would be good to have a chat one day. I can't believe that there isn't a parfocal lens that would fit this camera. But that's life. If I get the camera I will have to try an HD broadcast lens. Anyway thanks to everyone's input. I'll make a decision this week. More than likely will go for the jvc.
George😎

Steve I was wondering if your rokinons are mft or ef mounts????

George: I got the MFT mounts... since I also have two Pocket Cameras.

However, I may regret the choice if I decide on something like an Ursa Mini later on (probably not).. but generally I try to avoid adapters when possible.

BTW - The Rokinons are surprisingly good.. I got the 24,35,85 set on sale, added a 12 and filled in the holes with a cinematized (gears and de-clicked) 50 Summicron-R and a 135 Summarit-R I already had. They match well and hold up to Zeiss primes I've used recently - especially between T2 and T4-5.6.

G'day folks just saw a video on youtube of a guy testing the LS300 with a panasonic 14-140 lens and it looks like it maybe a parfocal lens. They put the lens on just passed half way through the video and are shooting a chart and it looks as though it is holding its focus. You might want to check it out.
George
Review: JVC GY-LS300 4K Interchangeable-Lens Camcorder - YouTube

G'day folks just saw a video on youtube of a guy testing the LS300 with a panasonic 14-140 lens and it looks like it maybe a parfocal lens.
There are no truly parfocal Panasonic or Olympus MFT lenses, they are all designed to rely on continuous auto-focus to keep them focused while zooming. This is why these lens' internal zoom and focus mechanisms intereact, as they can be optimized for compact size without concern for maintaining focus. In practice, many MFT cameras can indeed keep their zoom lenses actively in focus, so long as you don't twist the zoom ring quicker than they can respond.

I am on the verge of getting the LS300

I have no lenses, and would prefer getting an adapter and buying an EF lens, so that I can eventually use them with Canon DSLRs in the future

Any suggestion what to get?

Also is it possible for an EF lens to cover the whole 35mm sensor, or is this just a dream of mine?!!!

thanks

However, I may regret the choice if I decide on something like an Ursa Mini later on (probably not).. but generally I try to avoid adapters when possible.


I have a similar problem.... price difference between LS300 and Ursa Mini 4K is only $100
Why should I get the LS300?

You might have a look at Philips review to get a better understanding about the pros and cons of the ursa mini which could help in making a decision.: BLOOM VLOG: Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K review on Vimeo

thanks but the ursa 4.6K is definitely out of my budget. I was thinking about the 4K one as it's only a $100 more than then LS300.

I think JVC should slash down the price of the Ls300 to make my decision simpler!!!!!!

I was under the impression that featurewise (sensor size aside) the 4k and 4.6k are basically the same camera's? From what I see in Philips review and I could be mistaken, the ursa is not exactly an easy camera for run and gun work while the jvc is, it doesn't have nd's, no viewfinder (which adds to the price), standard no external microphone, a record button that only can be pressed when the lcd screen is open, only max 1600 iso and batteries that look more expensive. It looks like you need to add the shoulderpad to use together with the optional viewfinder which adds to the price again so to have a production ready camera the pricegap increases. When you use it as a shoulder camera it looks nearly impossible to reach any button you need to change any critical setting, that's at least what I can judge from the photos.

I think JVC should slash down the price of the Ls300 to make my decision simpler!!!!!!
Name me one other camera with jvc's featureset which cost 2,5k (b&h had it on offer a while ago for 3k including a 500 dollar lens) I think you should buy a camera that your budget allows.

Ursa Mini has a viewfinder... the rest is just as you said especially batteries and media!

Are you sure? from what I can read on the specification list it says the viewfinder is optional. Philip bloom also had no viewfinder, if it's optional it probably will be a expensive option.

you are right! it comes with the extra kit!

I see now it's 1500 dollar for the viewfinder and the shouldermount kit is another 400 dollar, that would make it about twice the price of the ls300 (taken the b&h offer with the lens included into consideration)

I have a Pana 20mm f1.7, which is supposed to have continuous autofocus during video and push focus for photo.

B&H: "Supports the Contrast AF system for highly precise autofocus. Continuous Auto Focus (AFC) does not work for still image capture but is usable when recording video"

On my Gx80/85 push focus works fine, but the video autofocus does not, nor on my Ls300.

Anything I can do or is the B&H statement wrong?

I pre-ordered the BM Mini Ursa 4K, (as well as the FS5) but when it became obvious that it was going to be a long time coming, opted for the LS300 as an interim solution. It was essentially only $2500 (it came bundled with a $500 Metabones EF adapter for 3 grand total).

I recently had the opportunity to work with the BM 4.6K Mini Ursa and wasn't as happy with it as I am with my two little Pocket Cameras.

I have been so pleased with the LS300, and it's ability to intercut with the Pockets, that I've given up thinking about other cameras. That's a good thing.

As for lenses, I will restate that my main lens is the Olympus 12-40, augmented by the Lumix 35-100. They're both very sharp, work at the 4K setting (if you're doing that) and cover most focal length needs -

But please get over depending on auto focus, it might work better with the contrastier cinema gamma (I haven't tried) , but my experience with J-Log is that it's chancy at best (and of course auto-exposure doesn't work at all with J-Log). If that is a deal breaker the new version of the C100 might be a better choice.

@steve rosen, i am very surprised that you did not like the BM 4.6K. I had the opportunity to work with one on 2 different shoots and it looks fantastic. unfortunately the price was a bit too pricey for my budget

B.J - I'm a documentary filmmaker and handhold most of the time - that combined with my lack of fascination for EF lenses (I have two from my C100) left me unimpressed.

The Mini Ursa looks well designed in photos, but the thought of working with one handheld all day harkened back to my years with the Eclair NPR - That was a great camera for the time, but with the front motor was very front-heavy. The Mini Ursa needs some help there. If I did buy one, I wouldn't use their EVF - it's just not forward enough - I'd mount my Gratical about 2-3 inches further over the lens - Unfortunately that leaves being stuck with those damn EF lenses.

One of the great things about the LS300 is I can use those EFs if I want, but can also use the pile of MFT lenses I have accumulated for my Pockets.

So, it's personal - But also, and others have said this as well, the image from the 4.6 just doesn't look as nice as the Pocket Camera. And the Pocket intercuts well with the JVC...

If the LS300 was 10 bit it would be a no-brainer, with no need for any rationalization.

I have to agree, the LS300 needs a better quality format than the 150mb/s compression we have now. And 10bit is always welcome, however I am not sure this is achievable through software

The BM is also available with PL mount ;)

No, not software - and unfortunately I seriously doubt that JVC will update the LS given it's apparently lackluster sales,,,

And, yeah, PL would be nice if I had even one PL lens, but my legacy lenses are all S16 CA-1 or Aaton mount, which don't cover the Ursa sensor anyway, and my modern lenses are all MFT - even the Rokinon and Nokton primes I bought with the hope that MFT would stick round for a while (I don't like using adapters if I don't have to)... Oh well.

I forgot to add that this concern I had about the end of MFT led me to buy - two days before the announcement of end of production - a Digital Bolex with an MFT mount. I realy wanted to love that camera, but the one I received had lots of problems, not the least of which it wouldn't recognize or format the new CF cards I bought with it. So I had to return it.. that was the last pro MFT option short of a GH4.

I have a similar problem.... price difference between LS300 and Ursa Mini 4K is only $100
Why should I get the LS300?

I had the same question. For me it was the cost per hour to record as well as battery system. (not included with Ursa Mini). Philip Bloom made a comment about how heavy it was when loaded to operate and that most of the time due to the high cost of media, he shot 10 bit instead of raw anyway.

I think the Ursa Mini is probably better in most regards, but will cost at least 2x as much to make it operate between CF2 cards and V mount or AB Batteries and charger (unless you have some laying around from your old gear)

I think the cost is more comparable to the now out of production Digital Bolex that came with 512g internal enterprise SSD and 4 hour battery for $3,000. with a Super 16mm and shot raw 1080p and cinema 2K at 12 bit 444 I believe. I nearly bought one till they stopped making cameras. (image quality over resolution debate)

@Alex, I have bought a whole load of gear, as I am starting afresh, so I came to your same conclusions.

I am selling my old 8 year old mics & gear, little by little, and buying batteries & sd cards!

I would say, and not attempting to start an argument (because I do own BM cameras), that the LS 300 is as good a camera as the Mini Ursa unless your requirements demand 10 bit. I do a lot of work for broadcast regionally and nationally, and the banding issue with 8 bit pops up more than I'd like - especially after the film is remastered for close-captopning...

The thing is, hardly anyone else ever notices it, not even my partner, and we've been making films together since 1984.

If you're doing narrative and have a hope of a major release, or doing a lot of effects or green screen, it may not be for you - but the LS300 produces a picture that will stand up next to almost everything out there... maybe even the "almost" qualification isn't needed. It's a great but much neglected and maligned product (and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford any camera I want, but why not be practical?)

Today I shot a lot of B roll at an historic California mission. I used my Pocket Cameras, which I really like. But when I got home and compared the footage to my last trip with the LS300, I preferred the LS footage.

Again, not intending to start a debate, just saying that it really can be a personal thing.

If I get the camera I will have to try an HD broadcast lens.

George. If you want a brief look at some footage of a 300 with a B4 lens using the MTF B4 adapter I squeezed off some shots some 12 months back. This camera had it's original firmware. Later firmware has improved the camera's performance somewhat so bear that in mind if you download the clip. The clip has all the lens / settings, details info at its head. Can be downloaded here:

www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/wwej5r

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

I would say, and not attempting to start an argument (because I do own BM cameras), that the LS 300 is as good a camera as the Mini Ursa unless your requirements demand 10 bit. I do a lot of work for broadcast regionally and nationally, and the banding issue with 8 bit pops up more than I'd like - especially after the film is remastered for close-captopning...

The thing is, hardly anyone else ever notices it, not even my partner, and we've been making films together since 1984.

If you're doing narrative and have a hope of a major release, or doing a lot of effects or green screen, it may not be for you - but the LS300 produces a picture that will stand up next to almost everything out there... maybe even the "almost" qualification isn't needed. It's a great but much neglected and maligned product (and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford any camera I want, but why not be practical?)

Today I shot a lot of B roll at an historic California mission. I used my Pocket Cameras, which I really like. But when I got home and compared the footage to my last trip with the LS300, I preferred the LS footage.

Again, not intending to start a debate, just saying that it really can be a personal thing.
@ Steve,

thank you for your insight. That was my assumption from looking at downloaded footage from JVC to edit with. Luckily I have a friend with a Red Scarlet if any scenes really need 12 bit raw. But so expensive to shoot per hour because of the proprietary HDD's. Having only a few hours of experimentation with my new LS300 I think it's pretty good and for my needs for the next year or two, good enough. Some post work latitude unlike the old HDV or Nikon DSLR (D5200) that has practically no wiggle room in post. So far the only issue I see for myself for how I plan on working for the next 12 - 24 months is JLog with the flat fields in moderately shadowed that look electronic and pixelated noise when the JLOG LUT is applied in post. (or grade manually and try to avoid it). I wonder if anyone has tried the Ninja Flame or Black Magic Video Assist 4K and record 10 bit on the external unit. It will still be 8bit color of course, but I wonder how much of the noise is post compression. Wish there was a 10bit uncompressed out the SDI or HDMI, but oh well. maybe in a year there will be a LS330 or something :)

Alex : I can'r answer your other questions, but as for the LUT, I don't use it - it's really not needed. With J-Log, I just add a little chroma (+10 - 15) and pull down the blacks slightly - and maybe boost the highlights (in FCPX, using the wave form). It's really a simple gamma to grade compared to others.

I'm (reluctantly) going to post a film I just finished in the footage thread.

but as for the LUT, I don't use it - it's really not needed

My experience tells me otherwise as I have seen a colorshift using J-log which was corrected by using the leeming lut.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't tried the LS300 LUT (I changed computers and never installed the LUT enabler for FCPX, can't even remember what it's called).

But I had a bunch of LUTs for the BM cameras and I always found myself dumping the LUT and going back to manual CC. I do still use FilmConvert, but even that not as much as before.

The thing that convinced me to buy the LS-300 was the sample footage shot indoors with full frame lenses. I did add the Panasonic 12-35 MFT lens for the times I want a stabilized lens. That is a very competent lens, but my best footage (particularly as light levels fall) seems to come from my full frame Nikon prime lenses at 100% VSM. I'm sure other quality full frame lenses would do as well, but the Nikkors are what I have. I'm happy enough with the results that I've added a lens support so I can use my heavier fast zooms, which all exceed the 800 gram limit of the LS-300 lens mount.

With J-Log1 post-production, the pitfall is in nailing the color saturation. A little contrast (gamma) and sharpening takes care of the dynamics, but it's hard to bring out vibrant colors while maintaining natural-looking skin tones. Beta versions of the Leeming LUT encountered this problem and required multiple trials to get the balance just right. I've seen much LOG footage shot with other cameras that appear to punt on this issue, going with a bleached look in post to keep the skin tones from looking too orange.

Lee Powell, so if you don't use J-Log1, what setting do you suggest of using in the camera for better results?

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I do use J-Log1, and post-process it with the Leeming LUT:

Leeming LUT One (http://www.leeminglutone.com/)

This converts JVC's log profile into a calibrated Rec 709 tone curve. From there I'll usually adjust the gamma, sharpen the luma component, and boost chroma to taste. Since J-Log1 mode does not allow you to sharpen the image in-camera, you need to post-process the footage anyway, so you might as well use a full-blown LUT to do the job right.

Alex : I can'r answer your other questions, but as for the LUT, I don't use it - it's really not needed. With J-Log, I just add a little chroma (+10 - 15) and pull down the blacks slightly - and maybe boost the highlights (in FCPX, using the wave form). It's really a simple gamma to grade compared to others.

I'm (reluctantly) going to post a film I just finished in the footage thread.

Thank you for the info. I had sort of come to similar conclusions. I find the JVC LUT though quick was for me so far overkill. In fact I find my skin tones falling apart too fast so I'm doing my own gentler kinder curve. I did pick up the Color Finale Pro plug in that if used after using FCPX color with wave form monitor adjustments. I may have to get the Neto or Photon Pro plug in for noise reduction and hide any other uglies with grain added, not that I like either of the ideas. Maybe I need to get my post voodoo down better or maybe a Ninja Flam might help a lot. (4:00am wondering if should have gotten a raw camera) though dealing with raw is a pain.

Alex. I find that if I'm very gentle with the grade, the J-LOG footage looks great - there is a tendency these days to either boost chroma WAY beyond normal or to introduce HUNGER GAMES type "Looks" that an 8 bit codec just isn't happy with - my solution for that would be to use filters and shoot as close to how you want it to end up in camera... After that, a simple grade works well with the 300...

I have Two Pocket Cameras and a Micro (and had a D16, but had to return it), so I do shoot raw occasionally. But mostly ProRes 422 or ProRes HQ - Those are amazing codecs and will take a lot of abuse - I wish every camera offered them.